What Liberals ‘Helping’ The Poor REALLY Looks Like (Exactly Like A Slum).

Liberals – with the help of the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the good old Nazi days or Joseph Stalin’s TASS in Moscow’s heyday – have convinced most ignorant people (i.e., the majority of the American people) that they are the ones who care about the poor.

Obama sure didn’t give a flying damn about the poor before he decided to break his promise and run for president after saying he wouldn’t. Because prior to that, he didn’t give the poor butkus. And as hard as it is to be more cynical and selfish and greedy than Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden actually managed to pull it off. Obama’s less than one percent charitable giving – you know, with his OWN money rather than forcing other people to “give” – looks pretty damn good compared to Joe Biden’s less than one-eighth of one percent.

How do Democrats get away with demonizing Republicans when there are ten demons in them? It’s easy: they are as dishonest and as slanderous as they are hypocritical. So Mitt Romney – who was actually incredibly generous with his own money – was slandered by the media propaganda as being greedy while Barack Obama who actually IS greedy was eulogized as somebody who care’s deeply about these people he didn’t give a penny to when it mattered.

Michelle Malkin in her excellent book “Culture of Corruption” documented that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s top adviser was a ruthless liberal slumlord in Chicago before she became a liberal saint in Washington.

I read a lot of news every day. It’s become my life and my passion. Rarely do I come across a story of greed and corruption so absurd that I can’t believe my own eyes as they scroll the page. This is one of those stories.

This takes the concept of slumlord to an entirely new level. As New York City struggles to find shelter for its increasingly large homeless population, some landlords are paying off their rent-stabilized tenants in order to overcharge the city on rentals for the homeless. In some cases, the rent ends up being as high as $3,000 a month for a tiny room without a kitchen or a bathroom. Yep, you read that correctly. So next time you wonder why you are paying so much money for your little box in the sky, you can thank America’s growing slumlord industry. Prepare your jaw to remain open for the next couple of minutes.

From the New York Times:

The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women.

Indeed, the amount the city pays — roughly half that amount goes to the landlord, while the other half pays for security and social services for homeless tenants — has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.

The fact that these modest living spaces have such high rents opens a window on a peculiarity of the city’s overall homeless policy. That policy, which was put in place in response to court settlements in 1979 and 2008, requires the city, under threat of sizable fines, to find a roof immediately for every homeless person. It has given landlords willing to house the homeless leverage to dictate rental prices and other terms.

With the number of homeless people rising to 30-year record levels — over 47,216 people as of early this month, 20,000 of them children — the city has struggled to find landlords willing to accommodate a population that includes people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Wait a minute. The number of homeless is at a 30 year high? How could this be in the booming economic recovery we’ve got going?

Joyce Colon, a resident there who entered the homeless system in December, said she was shocked by the violence and prostitution in the building.

“For $3,000 I could have gotten an apartment, a down payment and a security deposit and some furniture,” Ms. Colon, 49, said. “The landlord is getting $3,000 and I’m getting nothing.”

Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition for the Homeless, blamed the Bloomberg administration for the continuing use of private landlords to house the homeless, citing a policy not to give the homeless priority for public housing projects and Section 8 vouchers because of long waiting lists.

Of course Bloomberg has his little paws in this somehow. Perhaps he should’ve thought about this instead of spending his time banning large sodas.

“The crisis that’s causing the city to open so many new shelters is mostly of the mayor’s own making,” he said. “Instead of moving families out of shelters and into permanent housing, as previous mayors did, the city is now paying millions to landlords with a checkered past of harassing low-income tenants and failing to address hazardous conditions.”

Because just like everybody else, the poor have way to much money for liberals to be happy unless they can steal it.

I’m a conservative, which means I don’t like slums. And I sure don’t like the government creating them the way they’ve created Cabrini-Green and so many other thousands of hellholes. Liberals love them and keep creating more and more and more of them and they get filthy rich doing it. Because the more ignorant and the more oppressed and the more poverty-crushed and the more welfare-dependent and the more entitlement-demanding these desperate people are, the more they will vote for the people who are keeping them ignorant and oppressed and poor.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives are signficantly more generous with their own money and time than are liberals.

But the wolves have convinced the sheep that the sheepdogs are out to get them. And now the sheepdogs are largely out of the wolves’ way.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Obama’s present pick for Treasury Secretary is better than the last one – who was a certified tax cheat being given the job to make sure that conservatives and Republicans paid “their fair share” of the taxes HE didn’t pay.

13 Responses to “What Liberals ‘Helping’ The Poor REALLY Looks Like (Exactly Like A Slum).”

That’s exactly where liberalism leads: total, abject poverty. Liberalism, like Savage says, really is a mental disorder, but it is even more than that. Ultimately, liberalism is a satanic doctrine, a convoluted doctrine of demons spawned straight from the depths of hell.

Christ said that if a man doesn’t work, he will not eat. Christ was not a socialist. His entire message was about personal responsibility. Salvation is a personal issue between each individual man and God. Each person alone must choose where they will spend eternity.

Going back to the campaign for the election, I still don’t know why Romney and co. didn’t attack the hypocrisy of Obama and the left. Like when Reid was suggesting that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 yrs. or when they were trying to demonize him for being a one percenter. I would of taken it right to Reid, calling him a straight up liar and asking how he got so wealthy on a senator’s salary and, oh, those shady land deals. I would of brought up the fact that the main difference between the wealthy on the right versus the left is the charitable giving which is almost nonexistent among libs. These are just a couple of the millions of issues they could of rammed down their throats, but they remained silent. Sometimes you got to fight fire with fire and it is especially potent if it happens to be the truth.

By the way, the communist Jarret is another one that is on my dark-alley list.

Bloomberg should be forced to pay the $3,000 a month to all of the Holiday Inns for each of the Homeless,that way they would have bathrooms & room service.

After that they should tear down all of the buildings that the slumlords own. Or force the slumlords to fix up every building they own to where there are bathrooms & kitchens.As well as enough bedrooms for the people to sleep in.

My take on creepy shits helping the poor. Yesterday I discovered that in my city yet another stealth election is headed our way.

So here is the deal. AFSCME has discovered how easy it is to spawn a ballot initiative. All they have to do is get 3000 signatures on a petition. That is like 1 less than percent of the electorate.

So now we have a special election headed our way. They want to change the city charter, you know the equivalent of our local constitution.

They want to change election law to specify that to win a mayoral or council seat a minimum of 50% rather than 40% of the vote is necessary to win. Otherwise a runoff election is required. In your mind you must be saying huh, isn’t more than half necessary for a majority anyway?

Well no. Not if there are more than two candidates. If there are 3 candidates which is typical, how about whoever gets the most votes wins?

No the creepy union shits don’t like that idea because that is how our current mayor won. He won against two union bloodsuckers by garnering 44%.

Let me say a few words on behalf of our current mayor. I don’t guess I can exactly say friend but I am personally acquainted with the guy. We been in bicycle races together.

His management philosophy is reasonable. Hard times hit our town. You know the recession.

He managed our city quite well. No layoffs and no tax increases. Government jerkoffs making less than 30k got a miniscule raise.

Basically, Cabrini-Green is one of many of horror stories created by liberals helping people.

What is funny about this is the following liberal “logic” and its ramifications if it were consistently applied:

1) Waterboarding is torture and therefore it is bad. It doesn’t matter if a medical doctor was present; it doesn’t matter if the administration of waterboarding was controlled and supervised very carefully; it doesn’t matter if it was only done to three terrorists whom the CIA KNEW had information that could help them thwart other attacks; it doesn’t matter if we got bin Laden as a direct result of waterboarding; it doesn’t matter if those three terrorists who were waterboarded have absolutely ZERO ill effects from the waterboarding procedure.

2) Obama’s killing American citizens overseas with drone strikes is good. It doesn’t matter if it violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process to Americans; it doesn’t matter if a teenage boy who was NOT on the kill list was blown to pieces; it doesn’t matter if it killed and maimed innocent people (who suffered permanent effects unlike waterboarding); it doesn’t matter if we deem killing somebody a greater crime than merely causing somebody discomfort.

3) Conclusion: we should use Predator drones to target poor people – especially poor black people – and blow them to pieces. Because that’s what liberal “mercy” really looks like, judging by other liberal heroism like murdering 55.7 million American babies and calling said murder of 55.7 million babies “pro-child, pro-choice.”

Let’s end the suffering of poverty. Cabrini-Green wasn’t “humane” enough. Let’s blow those poor, suffering people to smithereens from the air without any due process like Obama is already doing.

Yes, but don’t forget the quintessential ingredient to liberals: personal, abject, dishonest hypocrisy. And how they slander their opponents for doing a FRACTION of what they do even as they are still doing it.

It is such a shame that you feel that way. You clearly don’t understand how liberalism works.

Allow me to educate you.

Liberals create one disaster after another, true. BUT THEY ARE NEVER RESPONSIBLE. It is wrong to hold them responsible for the disasters they cause because they have something called “good intentions” and are therefore beyond criticism.

The blame must be ascribed to Republicans, who have clearly been defined as bad, greedy people, even though they tried in vain to prevent the liberals from creating the disaster which Republicans accurately predicted would be a disaster if Democrats got their way.

If you don’t understand how to properly understand that you can’t hold Bloomberg or any other liberal responsible after this lesson, I am afraid you will have to lobotomize yourself. Because lobotomy always helps people see things the liberal way.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a man after my own heart, is taking it to the liberal scum in congress. He is the man behind the filibuster of the Muslim sympathizer Chuck Hagel. Mr. Cruz is the rare breed of conservative that will stand up to the nasty liberals no matter what.

It is funny that the liberal scum senators are demonizing Cruz by saying that he has no proof and no grounds to bring the type of accusations against Hagel – they are even comparing his attacks on Hagel as McCarthyism. Where was the outrage when Scarey Reid stated, or just made up, in the election that he had proof that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years. Of course, we know he just made that up knowing that many of the low-information voters would be influenced. This double standard is completely obnoxious. They say Cruz is over-the-top and are outraged, but this is exactly what they do with the exception that Cruz’s accusations aren’t made up. However, Cruz is right that Hagel is not fit, because he really is an anti semite and Muslim sympathizer. Why else would Obama or any other liberal nominate or back him.

Stay strong Cruz and maybe some of the other Republicans will develop a spine.

Where was the outrage when Scarey Reid stated, or just made up, in the election that he had proof that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years

FMC,

No! I can’t believe Democrats would have a supermassive-hypocrite-double standard!

Just like I can’t believe that Obama nominated for Secretary of the Treasury a man who had Cayman Island offshore accounts after his campaign slandered Mitt Romney by claiming the same sorts of accounts were somehow evil and even treasonous.